Abstract

Footnotes (207)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1596879. ; Size: 193K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

In 1948, the American automobile industry, with its associated auto dealers, commanded an important position in the nation’s economy. With that position came wealth and political influence, but also, in the immediate post-war period, industry concern about the degree to which the government would control the peacetime economy.

Even in the 1940s, that industry’s political activities were subject to a degree of regulation. Beginning in 1907 with the Tillman Act, Congress had enacted a series of laws limiting what individuals and corporations could do in federal elections. Those criminal provisions were rarely enforced, and guidance on their scope and application was elusive.

In 1948, the United States Department of Justice chose to prosecute three groups of auto dealers for making illegal corporate contributions to Michigan Republican party accounts, allegedly to influence federal elections. This article explores the events leading to that choice and the results of the prosecutions. As a rare exception to the usual lack of enforcement, the Michigan prosecution effort of the late 1940s can help us understand better the Department of Justice’s enforcement posture, and why enforcement was uncommon.